It’s very interesting to see the discriminatory listing about the makeup of the state legislature. You obviously left out a lot of the demographics I use to decide on the candidate of my choice. Which ones are cat lovers, dog lovers, horse lovers? Which ones drive Fords, Chevrolets, Chryslers, Toyotas? How many are left-handed, cross-eyed or have some other physical quirk that may suit my fancy?

I think the point should always be: Are they Americans who qualify to run for office? Do they have a background that would serve them well in the position they ascribe to? I always research the person’s public voting record (if they have ever served in office) to make sure that their stated policy positions match up with reality. How do they stand on various issues and which candidates do I agree with the most on these issues? I don’t need to know sex, religion (or lack thereof), race, sexual proclivities or whether they dress up for Halloween. I want the most qualified person for the job, and by counting all these other extraneous issues as qualifiers, it diminishes us and the political process.

Thomas Thurlkill, Commerce City

This letter was published in the Nov. 14 edition.

Although I am immensely proud of our state for electing people of various ethnic cultural backgrounds, I find it disconcerting to look at the headlines and tables identifying people by these tags and highlighting the differences. I hope we are not going to see quotes in The Denver Post from “the gay speaker of the House” rather than “the speaker of the House.” It reminds me of the ’40s and ’50s and seeing stories in the Rocky Mountain News and Denver Post identifying victims by their race. I hope we do not now have to see a table on the front page showing white politicians by religious preference as well.

Bud Olde, Lakewood

This letter was published in the Nov. 14 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow DPLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

We can all wish for a day when a person’s race, religion, or sexual orientation are completely irrelevant.
But, we just had an election where different groups of people held both the Democratic presidential candidate’s and the Republican candidate’s religion against them. Obama, because people don’t believe he’s really Christian. Romney because people don’t believe Mormons qualify as Christian.
Never mind that a political candidate’s religion is officially irrelevant.
GLBT people have routinely had their orientation used against them. Stripped of jobs, blackmailed into not running for office, ostracized, etc.
But now that Colorado is about to have a gay speaker, suddenly people would rather not talk about it.
When people resentful of someone’s race, religion, or sexual orientation stop obsessing over it, the rest of us will also.

thor

Since the average wage earning power of gays is higher than the national average, I’m not sure you should include “Stripped of jobs” in your list.

Anonymous

Have you read any history at all of gay people?
GLBT people used to be routinely fired from their jobs if they were discovered.
In the 1950s, for example, as a side effect of the “Red scare”, thousands of GLBT federal employees lost their jobs. GLBT people were considered to be morally deficient, and if they were discovered, private employers did used to fire them.
That whole “gays make more money than straights do” is based on a gay magazine’s attempts to boost ad sales by boasting how much money their readers make. It’s well known within the magazine publishing industry that magazine subscribers generally make more money than the population as a whole.

thor

Maybe I’m the only person to have gay friends that were treated as people. I made my first gay friend in the early 70’s. In the mid 70’s, the funeral home director and his assistant in a small town in MN were openly gay, but accepted in the community. A lot of people lost their jobs for various reasons during the “Red Scare.” It was a black eye on our country. But we’ve come a long way since then.

Anonymous

thor, you’re really. . not going to use the “my best friend is gay,” so therefore I’m not a gay basher – argument? You’re smarter than this!

thor

The only reason I wouldn’t use that argument is because none of my gay friends are in the “best friend” category. But some are more than just an acquaintance. But as to how smart I am, why would having a gay friend make me smart. I think it just makes me an average person. Its the haters and those who make a show of accepting gays who are on the fringe.

TomFromTheNews

Right now, in 2012, an LGBT person can be fired just for being LGBT in 29 states. It’s not even in the past that one could be “stripped of jobs”. It’s NOW. This tends to have a negative effect on “the average wage earning power of gays”.

thor

Name one state, and the extenuating circumstances. Why was the law passed and how is it enforced.

Anonymous

You misinterpreted Tom’s point.
In 29 states, there are no laws protecting GLBT people from discrimination. So an employer can fire someone for being gay.
So, it’s not that there’s a law that says employers can, it’s that there are no laws that say employers can’t.

TomFromTheNews

Sorry I wasn’t clear. Thank you, Pete, for clarifying.

Here are the states where you CAN’T be fired for being gay (without breaking a law that is) since it’s a shorter list. Thankfully, CO is on the list!

So yeah, it’s kind of a big deal when someone gets all the way to speaker of the house and is openly gay.

Anonymous

Remember when Colorado was on the other side of the fence and was deemed “the hate state” for it? Thank you Colorado for wising up.

Anonymous

I remember — and I’m astounded and gratified by the transformation in our state.

TomFromTheNews

Was Amendment 2 about job protection? I thought it was more about accommodations, but maybe my memory is failing.

Anonymous

Amendment 2 was about both job protection and public accommodations.
Amendment 2 stated, and used redundancy to emphasize the point, that no level of government in the State of Colorado — municipalities, counties, or state — could adopt, enact, or enforce any level of anti-discrimination laws on the basis of sexual orientation. Period.
I’ve always felt it succeeded in winning a majority because 90 – 95% of the population, not being GLBT, was not affected by it. It harmed them in no way. So a majority said “yes”.
The fantastic thing is, over the past few years, that a majority of that same 90 – 95% have looked at non-discrimination laws, and even possibly civil unions, and said “what’s the big deal?”

thor

Did you hear our recently elected CO speaker of the House on the Mike Rosen show today. (Probably not.) He wishes that the news stories would have not mentioned his sexual preferences in the news articles. Too bad we can’t just let him be who he is without getting into his personal life. BTW, he sounds more reasonable than some of the Democrats that might have gotten the job.

Anonymous

He probably is. He’s more pragmatic about what can be done.
Notice, it was the media, not him, who brought up the issue.

TomFromTheNews

I missed Mike Rosen’s show (I never listen to or read his anti-everything-I-value screed), but I have met and actually interviewed Mark Ferrandino before and yes, I’m sure he wants to get down to the people’s business and put the spotlight off of his sexual orientation. (I’m also sure he didn’t use the discredited phrase “sexual preferences”.)

thor

I’m sure he didn’t use sexual preferences either. But I don’t remember all the politically correct phrases I’m supposed to use.

thor

My own personal feeling, which is very common on this blog, is that very few gays are fired for being gay any more, no matter what state they live in. As a society, we do grow up as we go along.

Anonymous

So thor are you suggesting that LGBT people are smarter and more educated to get higher paying jobs than heterosexuals? you forget what Tom is saying.

thor

They are smarter, overall. So what. Good for them. But what makes Tom’s contention right, just because he asserts it.

Anonymous

It is a tad ironic that the very people who bend over backward to tell us that sexuality doesn’t matter still felt it necessary to trumpet a gay man winning the speakership.

Fact is, Mark Ferrandino’s rise to that position is more a function of his hierarchy within the party coalition than anything else.

Anonymous

“What’s race/gender/sexual identity got to do with it”
————-
EVERYTHING……if – if – if one seems to think that different races, different genders, and different sexual identities…..makes someone…..”different”……and the “difference” is BECAUSE of…..those things.

Some will say that those “things” show “progress” in “diversity”……while others may only see……”further division”…..as our “society” doesn’t see “people” or “human beings” in general……but only desires to see…..”races”…..”genders”…..”sexual identities” SPECIFICALLY.

Anonymous

“What’s love got to do with it.”
I’m guessing Thomas Thurlkill is a Republican, since he feels the need to point out the obvious, which the Repubs never seem to the obviousness of the forest for the trees. While there are a few people that might vote for a person based on their car model, or whether they’re a cat or dog lover. . . there is a large group of voters congregated in a certain party who will vote for or against a candidate based on their race, religion, or sexual preference. This was blatantly demonstrated to us during this last election, and especially the one before. The “black guy in the white house” is some foriegn to not only history, but also the bigoted minds of many people. THAT”S why the Post pointed out that there is a much more diversity in its state legislature and why it’s important for these usual suspects to “get it” that race, religion, sexual preference or gender, doesn’t matter to the majority voter, so just maybe this ilk needs to find a new agenda to control their voting preferences?

Anonymous

I’m sure some Republicans didn’t vote for The Obama because he’s black, but don’t pretend some Democrats voted for him because he’s black.

Dave

Maybe the worthless multicultural and diversity courses that are required in college have something to do with the obsession with gender/race/sexual identities. We used to all be Americans. Now it’s hip and trendy to be a hyphenated-American. Some people might enjoy being identified by gender/race rather than by actual accomplishments. It also helps one play the “victim” role.

Guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 150 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address, day and evening phone numbers, and may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.

To reach the Denver Post editorial page by phone: 303-954-1331

Recent Comments

peterpi: I think I have this correct: Voters in Jefferson County elected school board members that the superintendent...

peterpi: Sounds good to me. For future employees. I believe police and fire dept. brass have also been known to get...